peacefuljeffrey

But god help you if during your life you owned fifteen pit bulls and mastiffs... Sorry for the loss of Tippy. Never met the dog, but sounds nice. Rest in peace, Tippy. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When I was in tenth grade, a good friend of mine claimed he could drink a load of vodka and not get drunk. So one night, he and another friend were staying over at my parents' house, and we sat in the den, watched t.v., and he drank about TEN shots of Absolut from a bottle in my parents' bar. Soon afterward, we rode our bikes to a 7-11 about three miles away, he rode part of the way with no hands, and we played video games for a while, then rode home. He never showed any effects of intoxication. To this day I don't know how he did it. I have no reason to believe he had been able to substitute anything non-alcoholic for the vodka, and again, it came from my own house... Ooooweeeee-eeeeeoooooooh! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You know, all you lovely ladies could save yourselves this trouble by not wearing panties. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Look, the fact that GWB owns a pair of heavy boots makes it "plausible" that he stomped a hooker to death in an alley in Houston. Does "plausible" mean that something ought to be believed?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

EWWWW! That SUCKS! Oh, trust me, I don't grip anywhere near the cylinder. I have my dominant right hand on the grip, and I cup the left hand around the lower front of the right (index and middle finger over the pinkie and ring finger of the right hand) for stability. Nothing is near the cylinder. I was convinced that there's a mechanical deficiency when the range operator examined the gun, dry fired it, held the trigger down, and was able to wiggle the cylinder to another chamber! He said that is not good. The cylinder should remain locked until the trigger is released, according to him. In fact, on most of the chambers, it does. I have not yet identified whether there is a specific one that goes free. If there is, I will point it out to the warranty service people at Taurus. Maybe the cylinder simply is defective, not machined right, and needs replacement. I just have to get my butt down to Miami sometime (but I suppose I'll call first to verify that I can bring a gun in to them in person.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I can't remember what you have or haven't said regarding gun rights, but if you're not 100% for them, without stupid restrictions, "assault-weapons bans," meaningless five-day waiting periods, et al, you are not a Libertarian. So now with that in mind, are you a Libertarian? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I love doing that! It's my favorite thing! Have you tried it? It's a blast! I guess I missed it or it didn't register. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My first and only revolver right now is the .22 Tracker by Taurus. I love firing it at the range, since it's a .22 and I can buy a box of .22LR HP (550rds.) for under ten bucks and shoot for several hours with 7 rounds per loaded cylinder. The only problem is, there is a deficiency in the cylinder lockup, which I was noticing (I'm no revolver expert by a long shot) because my left hand was getting sprayed with gas and lead sometimes when I fired. The alignment of the chamber and forcing cone is sometimes off because of the cylinder problem, and because of this some material was getting shaved off as the lead bullets left the chamber for the barrel. Ugh. Brand new gun, too. Taurus has a lifetime warranty, and they're in Miami, so I've been intending to just drive down there some afternoon and drop off the gun rather than pay to have it shipped. Maybe I can even get a tour if there's anything to see? I recommend a .22LR revolver to anyone who wants to improve trigger control and shooting in general. One trick I tried out (could not remember if I'd read it somewhere or come up with it on my own) was to put only a couple of rounds into the cylinder, rotate it without watching, and fire. If you use proper trigger control, you should not flinch or see the muzzle move when the hammer drops -- even if it's on an empty chamber. You can get very surprised to find you're flinching really badly when you didn't know you did. You can also load all but one chamber and do the same thing. You're used to Fire Fire Fire and then Click. It's so easy to flinch! Gotta beat that instinct out of yourself. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why on earth would you say this about Bush as though the same exact assessment is not equally true of Kerry? You think a guy who married into half a billion dollars gives a flying shit about you and me either?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It amazes me to watch how all these almighty and all knowing Republicans on dz.com don't realize Bush isn't running against Clinton. Because, every argument ends with Clinton was/is worse. Pretty sad when you have to prop up your Master against some one who he isn't even competing against. This also goes for all the closet republicans who hide behind the libertarian curtain. Oooh, "let that be a lesson to us. This goes for all of us!" There's nothing invalid about pointing out the ridiculousness of someone who gripes about Bush's "ego" while making no mention of the monumental one that Bill Clinton had (has). This has nothing to do with who is running against whom. You appear to be confused. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Thus demonstrating that the Democrats are not at all interested in benefiting the country, just hating George W. Bush. Thanks for making clear how intellectually bankrupt your position is. - Erroneous logic. First, you don't know that BZ is a Democrat. Second, removing a harmful influence and replacing it with something benign IS an improvement. How exactly would it be "benign" to elect an inanimate sock monkey to the office of the president? The office would essentially be vacant, and none of its responsibilities to the country fulfilled. You call that "benign"? Your claim that electing a sock monkey president would be benign is false. And I was not really implying that he was a Democrat specifically -- we all know that the new Democrat mantra is "Anybody but Bush," so he accusation against Dems fits. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How do you know the story is fictional? Should we believe it is true until proved otherwise? At this point, the story has been claimed, but not supported with a shred of evidence besides an unethical reporter's blabbing about off-the-record comments. Is it more sensible to say it might be true but is false until proven, or might be false but is true until disproven? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A reporter I know for the Washington Post said that Dick Morris (off the record, of course) told her that he really howled when Clinton slipped it in. Apparently up til that time Morris had been an anal virgin. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You didn't make any claims about its legitimacy or validity, and you have nothing more to go on regarding proving its truth than we do, but you believe it's true. Interesting. You don't have much in the way of a threshold of proof before you go believing something, do you? It just has to be in line with your preexisting opinion about someone? And hearsay compounded on hearsay becomes believable, credible testimony? Pshah. What I'd rather you do is not post something completely unverifiable and then try to distance yourself from any implication that it's true and should be believed. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Kev, are you saying that you believe this story is a wholly true accounting of actual events? On the say so of one person who was not there? You get the story third-hand and report it as though -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you are confident that Bush did exactly as described. I'm skeptical, as I think anyone who is responsible should be, when such an outrageous claim is made. Why would Biden not wish to let more people know than one reporter who was told the story "off-the-record"? Establishing that Bush is this temperamental would do wonders for Kerry's chances, right? Why did you reporter go and blab about something that an interviewee said off the record? That doesn't seem very responsible nor very professional of her. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Isn't that just inches away from Michael Moore's justification for distorting facts; "Well, they are extreme in their methods, so I will be too"? How in the world did you get anything about a justification for distorting facts from what I said????? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

As opposed to an adamant refusal to discuss or even consider the fact that guns do have the potential to cause societal harm? Which pro-gunner or pro-gun organization has claimed this not to be true, or has carried on as though it doesn't happen? I say that all along, what we've done is state that the price of banning gun ownership is unquestionably higher than the price of allowing it, or even encouraging it. We have NOT evidenced an adamant refusal to discuss or consider the fact that guns can be USED to cause societal harm (note: your syntax implies that the guns cause the harm, but this is preposterous). In fact, pro-gunners often cite the harm done with guns (WITH, not BY) alongside the good that is done with them. Many times I have seen pro-gunners cite the 30,000 annual U.S. gun-related deaths (many of which are not criminal homicides but suicides which would happen with or without guns), alongside the estimates of 800,000 to 2,000,000 annual defensive gun uses. Now, can you tell me how citation of the gun death toll can be called a refusal to discuss the gun death toll? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Without a doubt, the same way that some people are unequivocally trying to ban same sex marriages with a constitutional amendment. It doesn't mean they can do it. The way you and others sound from these posts, it's almost as if you do not trust the pro-gun lobby to protect your interests. Those who oppose something like same sex marriage have an all-or-none goal: either the legalization of it or the prohibition of it will result. Anti-gunners who avow that they want to eradicate gun rights can achieve a huge number of small, pernicious "victories" along the way. We will not see a law or bill that passes that says, "Civilians are prohibited from possessing any and all firearms." Of course not. But what we DO see, and ARE seeing, is the incremental erosion of this aspect of the right, and that aspect of the right, and in some place in this country the right IS severely infringed upon, almost to the point of being nonexistent. See New York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, IL for verification of this FACT. The har m in that is that a government that takes upon itself the power to set up tests for qualifying to own a gun can make those tests irrationally and impossibly difficult to pass, if that government wants to discourage or in fact deny the exercise of the right to own guns. That's why we oppose it. The power to regulate IS the power to deny. This same "lifting" of restrictions IS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED BY THE ANTI-GUNNERS, WHO HAVE BEEN FIGHTING TOOTH-AND-NAIL TO PREVENT IT FROM OCCURRING. They care so much about preventing it that they poisoned a widely supported unrelated bill in order to try to slip it through! The "hysteria," as you call it, in this thread is about the fact that we never should have lost that aspect of our rights (the "assault weapon") in the first place, and we are incensed that anti-gunners, who categorically cannot demonstrate any utility or good provided by the assault weapons ban, are still trying to keep us denied those rights. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Imagine if, for ten years, the government had refused to let you exercise part of your first amendment rights, say, they had enforced a law that prohibited groups of 10 or more people from gathering to discuss political topics. Then after 10 years go by, the law is found to have helped nothing, and it "sunsets." You are back to having what rights you should have had all during those ten years. You haven't "gained" anything; you've RE-gained something that had been wrongly denied you. There is so much RE-gaining to do, the anti-gunners would have to wait a while before pro-gunners ever started getting rights they didn't start out with in the first place. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, I think there are extremists on both sides of ANY issue. Gun control, gay marriage, environmental issues, whatever. That doesn't mean that it is going to happen the way she wants. So that's an argument for ignoring them and their efforts toward total gun prohibition? Don't you think that if we did not stand in opposition to them, no matter how much of a longshot their goals are, that they might make headway and then we'd stand around going, "How the hell did that legislation get passed?!" You can't sit around and ignore your enemies just because at the current time they are not very powerful and don't hold that much sway. When you're not opposing them in order to preserve your rights, that's when their power will grow. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The key word is "some". Most opponents of any type of gun restriction say that it will lead to the banning of ALL guns. Why should we not take a large contingent of the anti-gun crowd at their word? They STATE that their ultimate goal is the prohibition of all gun ownership. Just because some portion of anti-gunners don't want total prohibition does not mean that those who do can't use the overall efforts of anti-gun activists toward that goal. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I believe that this is in large part due to the denial and refusal of the media and of single-minded anti-gunners to grant that guns can and do serve a useful, legitimate, often life-saving purpose. Their adamant refusal to recognize this brands them as ignorant philistines and is a clear indication that they will not argue the issue in good faith. Guns are used legally millions of times more often than they are used illegally. That alone is a good defense of gun ownership. When was the last time Dianne Feinstein or Chuck Schumer mentioned someone who had saved their own life through the use of a gun? Shit, these two won't even acknowledge that their own secret service bodyguards use guns as a deterrent to those who would try to hurt them! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Very true. But, cars are HEAVILY regulated, and people don't scream and yell that any change in that regulation will lead eventually to them not having cars at all. The point that I am trying to make, ad nauseum, is that there sems to be no room for any type of discussion without it becoming a hysterical screaming match and some "threat to the basic principles of our country". When was the last time you heard of any avowed anti-car activist proclaiming that some vehicle regulation was only one initial step toward the ultimate banning of automobile travel? Because the difference in your example is that we DO REGULARLY hear anti-gun activists say that they ARE trying to use incremental steps toward a gradual extinction of the right to keep and bear arms. And are you really asserting that guns/gun manufacture/gun ownership are NOT "HEAVILY regulated"?! Do you have any IDEA just HOW heavily regulated they are?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Really? Could you show us some examples of where the pro-gun crowd has bolstered its case with outright lies, or asked for expenditures by government in the tens of millions of dollars based on outright lies? On the anti-gun side, we have: - The lie that Glocks are capable of passing through security checkpoints undetected "because they're made of plastic." (They HAD to know this was a lie if they'd ever even SEEN a Glock before making the statement.) - The lie that "assault weapons" are any more dangerous than any non-banned semiautomatic rifle - The lie that "assault weapons" are the "weapon of choice" for street criminals, despite the fact that they are used in less than half of one percent of criminal shootings. - The lie that hollow-point bullets are "cop-killers," "designed to penetrate police kevlar body armor." - The lie that "teflon, armor piercing bullets" are available on the streets (when they are sold to law enforcement only, and the teflon is irrelevant; it's the steel core that matters) - The lie that 17, no wait, 13, er 10, um 6 "children" a day are killed "by guns." (and counting gang-bangers up to age 25 as "children") - The lie that where guns are carried lawfully by licensed owners, blood will run in the streets and traffic altercations will commonly end in deadly gunfire, when 36 states now have shall-issue concealed carry laws and their crime rates have gone DOWN. Really, TF, SHOW US WHERE THE PRO-GUNNERS HAVE LIED. And anyone else, please help me add to my list of bald-faced anti-gun lies, won't you? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Holy shit, if this is your rationale for being able to take away "assault weapons" why the hell don't you think it could be used to take away ANYTHING ELSE you might wish to own, beginning with automobiles, aircraft, chainsaws, nailguns, hammers, machetes, swords (combat or ceremonial), gasoline, lighters... I mean jesus, man, you can use the "some maniac could abuse it" argument for A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, and that's precisely why it's not valid!! I would love to hear an argument for banning something that does not include the shrill claim that the many must suffer loss of their rights in order to (unsuccessfully) prevent the psychotic from doing harm to innocents. The argument itself flies in the face of statistics, which generally (no matter what the subject) indicate that an infinitessimal percentage of uses of various items falls into the illegal or dangerous category. When tens of millions of guns around the country are used to fire BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition every single year, and only a few thousand are used to criminally harm other people, how can you justify letting the .00000001 (made up decimal) establish the rule by which you go confiscating the guns? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"